Beginner PS, LR or both ?

Messages
16
Edit My Images
Yes
#1
My trial has expired for LR and looking to purchase a subscription.

LR seems to do everything I've needed so far, so do I need PS?

Has anyone bought both and not used PS, or use it more than they thought they would?

Or is the 1TB storage more useful than an app I might not use?

Decisions, decisions!!
 
OP
OP
V
Messages
16
Edit My Images
Yes
#3
You can buy just a LR package, it comes with 1TB storage or PS & LR with 20GB storage for same price...
 
Messages
531
Name
Trev
Edit My Images
Yes
#4
You can buy just a LR package, it comes with 1TB storage or PS & LR with 20GB storage for same price...
The 2 packages are for different things.

The Lightroom cc with 1TB is not quite the full package as the Lightroom Classic and PS one. I use the Classic version on my MacBook. I am not interested in using iPads, mobile phones etc. so it suits me better plus I have access to PS.
 
OP
OP
V
Messages
16
Edit My Images
Yes
#5
I understand what each subscription offers, I think the question I'm asking my self is do I need PS?

I've never used PS - so don't know if it would be useful.

I suppose I could trial it like I did LR :LOL:.....
 
Messages
967
Edit My Images
Yes
#6
im a complete beginner with LR and even more so with PS (played with LR when it was Lightroom 4 but not used since, not sure I've even opened PS BUT, and here's the but.

managed to suggest to my work that "its all needed" as i wanted LR (for pics) and PP (prem pro) for videos. so i ended up getting everything, I've used LR 4-5 times in the last few weeks and PS 4-5 times as well,

i used PS some years back and found it horrid, complicated, slow, just damn right nasty, i used it for the first time the other day and its just so seamless between LR and Ps that ive found myself using it more and more (badly i may add) but still using it. Those pics that have an arm or horrible post in the way, no longer throw away, got a pesky tourist in your godly landscape shot, no worries. Don't get me wrong my first attempt to move a background body failed badly on PS but shooting a football match the winning strike had an annoying head in the corner, maybe 2 mins and gone. i know its easy for me to say, but if i had the choice and the money was the same LR+PS wins.
 
Messages
531
Name
Trev
Edit My Images
Yes
#7
I understand what each subscription offers, I think the question I'm asking my self is do I need PS?

I've never used PS - so don't know if it would be useful.

I suppose I could trial it like I did LR :LOL:.....
I would have thought the question is more which version of Lightroom you require. If both versions cost the same amount of money then clearly it is question of which one suits you better. Do you need the 1TB of on line storage but with a currently less complete version of Lightroom or do you prefer/need the full blown Classic version. I put all my photos on external hard drives as I refuse to use cloud storage. Your needs may be totally different.
 
Last edited:
Messages
10,212
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
#8
My standalone copy of LR6 doesn't support the RAW files from my newest camera.
I also have a standalone Photoshop Elements 2018 so decided to give that a go and it's Adobe Camera Raw editor.

For what I need it seems to be fine and can be used in conjunction with LR, might one day need the subscription, but not yet.
 
Messages
3,006
Name
droj
Edit My Images
No
#9
i used PS some years back and found it horrid, complicated, slow, just damn right nasty,
That's funny, when it's been the industry standard for decades ... and probably the most empowering thing in software terms for photo imaging in that period. But it's generally well-recognised round here that LR has taken over most of the basic processing functions.
 
Messages
3,006
Name
droj
Edit My Images
No
#10
My trial has expired for LR and looking to purchase a subscription.

LR seems to do everything I've needed so far, so do I need PS?
You don't need PS until you need it, and you obviously don't need it yet. PS has more powerful / sophisticated functions when you want to advance beyond basic processing. It mines deep.

Have you looked at DxO Photolab as raw processor? Very well-featured, strongly functional, and non-subscription.
 
OP
OP
V
Messages
16
Edit My Images
Yes
#11
I went for both in the end. Had some fun with the healing brush - once you start looking/editing your pictures you realise what extras there are in your picture that distract from the main image.

It'll make me think more about the photo next time....
 
Messages
756
Edit My Images
No
#13
My trial has expired for LR and looking to purchase a subscription.

LR seems to do everything I've needed so far, so do I need PS?

Has anyone bought both and not used PS, or use it more than they thought they would?

Or is the 1TB storage more useful than an app I might not use?

Decisions, decisions!!
LR's main function is like one big scrapbook showing all your photos, in effect a catalogue of your photos, like a museum have a catalogue of paintings, making it easier to find 'that' photo you want to look at. LR's editing tools is a minor and secondary function. Helps with fix a bit of bad exposed image. That one photo is a bit dark, so adjust it to good exposure.

Think of LR as a ink pen.

PS's main function is like a drawing board or painting stand or a darkroom enlarger. It is for you to create an artwork or make a photo form a negative, as well as adjust lighting levels, it's there to be creative, change your photo to different colours, or turn it into a drawing or painting.

Think of PS as a lead pencil.

If all you do is just import your photos, to catalogue them, for the purpose of finding photos, with a bit of adjusting the image's darkness or brightness, little retouching to remove that little spot there, then you do need LR.

But ask yourself this: Do you want to do some painting? Retouching the overall image like "I'm going to airbrush out this guy in the background of my photo!"?

So if "Yes", then you could do with PS, but if "No", then you could do without PS.

So think of it in the sense of: You always use a pen for writing, but sometimes a pen can be used for a bit of doddle drawing. But do you really need the pencil? How likely are you going to be using the pencil and draw a big sketch?

Hope it helps giving you ideas on how to look making a decision?
 
Messages
2,614
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
#14
LR's editing tools is a minor and secondary function. Helps with fix a bit of bad exposed image. That one photo is a bit dark, so adjust it to good exposure.


If all you do is just import your photos, to catalogue them, for the purpose of finding photos, with a bit of adjusting the image's darkness or brightness, little retouching to remove that little spot there, then you do need LR.

But ask yourself this: Do you want to do some painting? Retouching the overall image like "I'm going to airbrush out this guy in the background of my photo!"?
In fairness LR's editing tools are pretty powerful now. You can mask out parts of the image, apply adjustment brushes and do many of the common image editing tasks you would do in PS. I barely ever use PS but I have used it to create text logos and I'm currently designing a wedding table plan in it. For photo work LR does everything I need to do, but for a tenner a month you can't beat having both software packages.
 
OP
OP
V
Messages
16
Edit My Images
Yes
#15
I went for both packages for a tenner - and have used both so far so it’s been a worthwhile purchase.
 
Messages
4
Name
Phil Maddocks
Edit My Images
No
#17
I'd get the full package with Lightroom and photoshop. Like mentioned above, if you only buy the Lightroom CC subscription you don't get Lightroom Classic which I use over Lightroom CC because of easier photo organisation, meta data and features such as photo merge and HDR.
 
Messages
8,694
Name
Jeremy Moore
Edit My Images
No
#18
i used PS some years back and found it horrid, complicated, slow, just damn right nasty,
The OP has made his decision, so I guess it's too late now but I agree with his comment about Photoshop. It was never designed for photographers so in response to the statement "industry standard" one could say "which industry?"

For what it is worth I took to Lightroom like a duck to water and it was only at the point they made it subscription only that i have begun to look elsewhere.

Had I seem this post earlier I would have suggested the following - get a standalone copy of Lightroom v6 and Affinity Photo, which by all accounts is a real alternative to PS.
 
Messages
22,765
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
#19
LR's main function is like one big scrapbook showing all your photos, in effect a catalogue of your photos, like a museum have a catalogue of paintings, making it easier to find 'that' photo you want to look at. LR's editing tools is a minor and secondary function. Helps with fix a bit of bad exposed image. That one photo is a bit dark, so adjust it to good exposure.

Think of LR as a ink pen.

PS's main function is like a drawing board or painting stand or a darkroom enlarger. It is for you to create an artwork or make a photo form a negative, as well as adjust lighting levels, it's there to be creative, change your photo to different colours, or turn it into a drawing or painting.

Think of PS as a lead pencil.

If all you do is just import your photos, to catalogue them, for the purpose of finding photos, with a bit of adjusting the image's darkness or brightness, little retouching to remove that little spot there, then you do need LR.

But ask yourself this: Do you want to do some painting? Retouching the overall image like "I'm going to airbrush out this guy in the background of my photo!"?

So if "Yes", then you could do with PS, but if "No", then you could do without PS.

So think of it in the sense of: You always use a pen for writing, but sometimes a pen can be used for a bit of doddle drawing. But do you really need the pencil? How likely are you going to be using the pencil and draw a big sketch?

Hope it helps giving you ideas on how to look making a decision?
LR's editing tools are a minor function?! Err, no :eek:

LR was designed from the start as 'Photoshop for photographers'. It takes all the processing power of Photoshop and all the editing features that photographers need, and wraps them up in a user-friendly interface that reflects the way we work. Unlike Photoshop, most users take to LR 'like a duck to water' as Jerry says. We also need library and cataloging features (including cloud storage) so they were added too, along with the major bonus of non-destructive editing.

LR is extremely capable in its own right with a wide range of advanced editing options, but is also designed to dovetail seamlessly with Photoshop when necessary for some things (principally layers) but in eight years I've never needed Photoshop.
 
Messages
898
Name
Tyson
Edit My Images
Yes
#20
I use LR all the time in post and occasionally I export from LR to PS.
I would sooner have it and not need it rather than need it and not have it !

PS is useful and worth learning some of the basics as it can be a very useful tool. Though LR is the package to be a Jedi Master on !
 
Messages
3,006
Name
droj
Edit My Images
No
#22
I went for both packages for a tenner - and have used both so far so it’s been a worthwhile purchase.
Since Photoshop's where I started so many years ago, it's very hard to imagine being without it, even if these days I use LR more. So good on you for getting stuck in. PS is incredibly versatile.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,080
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
No
#23
I came to LightRoom via Raw Shooter Essentials (what Adobe bought and turned to Lightroom).... I had PS in one version or another since PS3.

There are several schools of thought when it comes down to editing photos - mine is:

Ps for minor editing adjustments of JPEGs straight out of camera or to just to do final touches from the TIFF output of LR-processed NEF or DNG/PEF files, this does for 90% of my photos. Also Nik plug-ins for B&W conversion (great when it was free)

Lr for those images that require more manipulation, rescuing highlights and shadows, graduation and balance, or if I intend to produce the image (no matter how good the jpeg is already) for printing to A4 or greater. The outputs from LR require minimal intervention in PS.

But the deal from Adobe for CC for 2 PCs suits us, gives us LR and PS (and a lot of other stuff we can't be bothered with), but I am interested in the 1TB cloud storage. The only annoyances are the regular updates which are rather disruptive.
 
Messages
5,696
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
#25
I have used Photoshop since it first came out. I find it essential
I have used Lightroom for about three years, ever since the asset management program I had been using was bought out by Microsoft and ruined. They serve two entirely different functions.
However there are now two versions of each now, one intended for uses on a desktop computer and the other on mobile devices.
I only have a use for the more functional desktop version.
Phones and tablets are too small and low powered to use for serious processing, nor are their screens likely to be sufficiently accurate for serious colour work.
 
Messages
2,614
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
#26
I have used Photoshop since it first came out. I find it essential
I have used Lightroom for about three years, ever since the asset management program I had been using was bought out by Microsoft and ruined. They serve two entirely different functions.
However there are now two versions of each now, one intended for uses on a desktop computer and the other on mobile devices.
I only have a use for the more functional desktop version.
Phones and tablets are too small and low powered to use for serious processing, nor are their screens likely to be sufficiently accurate for serious colour work.

My Samsung Galaxy Note 9 screen is perfectly colour accurate when placed in photo mode. DisplayMate tested it when the phone was released and declared it the best display they had ever tested, on any device. For colour accuracy they said: "Very High Absolute Color Accuracy (0.5 JNCD) that is Visually Indistinguishable From Perfect " Yes it's an expensive phone but one of the main reasons I went for it was so I could do photo work on the go, or on my lunch break at work etc. It also has a built in stylus for precise work.

Lightroom mobile syncs with the desktop version as well and I use it for a lot of quick edits once I have imported my images onto my laptop and synced everything up. There is little you can do on the desktop version of Lightroom that you cannot do on the mobile version now.
 
Messages
224
Edit My Images
Yes
#27
Didn't read the rest of the thread but I would say both definiately.

Lightroom: catalogue management and the vast majority of basic editing goes on here
Photoshop: for more detailed blending of exposures or cloning out of more complex objects too large for Lightroom to handle

The subscription model makes sense to have both as well.
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,696
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
#28
My Samsung Galaxy Note 9 screen is perfectly colour accurate when placed in photo mode. DisplayMate tested it when the phone was released and declared it the best display they had ever tested, on any device. For colour accuracy they said: "Very High Absolute Color Accuracy (0.5 JNCD) that is Visually Indistinguishable From Perfect " Yes it's an expensive phone but one of the main reasons I went for it was so I could do photo work on the go, or on my lunch break at work etc. It also has a built in stylus for precise work.

Lightroom mobile syncs with the desktop version as well and I use it for a lot of quick edits once I have imported my images onto my laptop and synced everything up. There is little you can do on the desktop version of Lightroom that you cannot do on the mobile version now.
Can you correct your galaxy for colour accuracy and brightness with a colourimiter as it ages and drifts from true.
I would find that screen size impossible to cope with. I find a 22 inch screen the minimum real estate to be practical.
 
Messages
2,614
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
#29
Can you correct your galaxy for colour accuracy and brightness with a colourimiter as it ages and drifts from true.
I would find that screen size impossible to cope with. I find a 22 inch screen the minimum real estate to be practical.
Probably not, as it's an OLED screen rather than LCD I'm not sure that would be an issue anyway, certainly not over it's maximum 2 year lifespan. I'd never use it as my primary editing machine, but it's very useful and something I edit at least one shot on most days. My point was more than mobile screens have come on a long way in recent years, and that the desktop and mobile versions of Lightroom will happily work together. Try the mobile app sometime, you'll be pleasantly surprised at just how powerful it is.
 
Messages
1,970
Edit My Images
Yes
#30
The OP has made his decision, so I guess it's too late now but I agree with his comment about Photoshop. It was never designed for photographers so in response to the statement "industry standard" one could say "which industry?"
Also, 'Industry Standard' merely means that a lot of people buy it. Fords are industry standard cars but Porches, Ferraris, Laambourginis perform better.
Had I seem this post earlier I would have suggested the following - get a standalone copy of Lightroom v6 and Affinity Photo, which by all accounts is a real alternative to PS.
This is exactly what I did - and rarely need Affinity as Lightroom does nearly all the editing that I need.
 
Messages
5,696
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
#31
Also, 'Industry Standard' merely means that a lot of people buy it. Fords are industry standard cars but Porches, Ferraris, Laambourginis perform better.
This is exactly what I did - and rarely need Affinity as Lightroom does nearly all the editing that I need.
The proto Photoshop was designed for the film industry. But almost immediately got taken up by the Photo and graphic design world.
where is was used alongside Quark Express. Quark Express has faded away and is now largely replaced by inDesign as the go to Graphic design package. Photoshop still is the Go to in that world.
 
Messages
5,696
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
#34
Once there was Pagemaker ...

Quark is still being developed and is available to buy outright, and remains a very powerful app with a relatively light footprint. My own view is that it's easier to use than InDesign.

Heres an interesting timeline - https://www.vektorgarten.de/publishing-timeline.html
3
Adobe bought out Pagemaker from Aldus. It did not survive the launch of indesign. Pagemaker was never sold for professional design use. (However I found it quick and easy to use for simple jobs, but it could not produce output directly for use by printers (Litho))

Quark at one stage had over 90% share of the graphic design market with in a period of two years it had lost almost all of it to indesign. Which intergrated far better with the needs of designers and prepress demands.
It was never intended to be other than a high end professional program. It is unsuitable and extreme overkill for home use
 
Last edited:
Top